Which aspect of the game do you give more weight to: The coaches/managers on the sidelines that are calling the plays, making the moves and coming up with the game plans? Or the players on the field actually going through the motions?

If you took the greatest mind and gave him an average squad, could he beat the greatest players led by a mediocre mind? Or would the great players win anyway?

Do some sports rely more on coaches more so than others? Which ones and why?

Yes, I do think that you can take an average player with a big mind and beat a very good player with a mediocre mind. Look at the Golden State Warriors vs. Dallas Mavericks, Mavs are a far more superior team then the warriors but look, the mavs had a mediocre mind and got killed by a huge minded average team.
--------------

I also think to win something you need to have a combination of both good players and good coaches, great coaches can't win by themselves with a mediocre team, look at the bulls in the 90's without michael jordon, horrible team, but they had an amazing coach, phil jackson. But I think that if they didn't have phil jackson but had micheal jordon, they wouldnt be anything special either because phil jackson got micheal in a state of mind that you can do anything if you progress, and he did which gave the bulls a dynasty and could be arguably the best team that ever player together..

I think football is the game where coaches matter the most. Most teams in the NFL have roughly the same amount of talent, what it comes down to is how well the coaches can maneuver the chess pieces on the field.

Originally posted by Dusty Bottoms I think football is the game where coaches matter the most. Most teams in the NFL have roughly the same amount of talent, what it comes down to is how well the coaches can maneuver the chess pieces on the field.

both... a team that is underprepared due to bad coaching will underachieve, but on the flip side, the greatest of coaching minds can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

football is the sport where coaches probably make the biggest difference, and they probably make the least difference in baseball. (coughcoughjoetorrecoughcough)

overall... a good coach can make a bad team respectable, a mediocre team good, a good team great... but no coach can make a bad team great. you can make them better, you can get 'em to hang around against better talent, but if you don't have the horses there's only so much you can get do in one season.

Originally posted by UberBeaver Which aspect of the game do you give more weight to: The coaches/managers on the sidelines that are calling the plays, making the moves and coming up with the game plans? Or the players on the field actually going through the motions?

If you took the greatest mind and gave him an average squad, could he beat the greatest players led by a mediocre mind? Or would the great players win anyway?

Do some sports rely more on coaches more so than others? Which ones and why?

1. Definitely the players. I can only refer to sports such as AFL and Cricket, but in these cases, it's definitely the players. The coach can move players which will prove match-winning, but it's ultimately the players.

2. The greatest players would win for sure. Sheer power, they would hardly need a coach. There would be enough leadership on the field to null the effect of an average coach.

3. Motorsports tend to rely on coaches or team bosses/strategists a lot because they have all the facts on demand, and can radio to their driver what they need to do to win a game.